In conventional communication networks, a topology is defined by the location of nodes and the links that interconnect them. As nodes and functions are virtualized, and as logical links can be created between virtualized nodes, the topology of a network, which was once defined solely by the arrangement of physical resources, can be defined by network management entities. Software Defined Topology (SDT), along with other technologies such as Software Defined Networking (SDN), is considered as an enabling technology for the dynamic creation and management of networks. In the context of a next generation network, such as a so-called fifth generation (5G) wireless networks, an SDT management entity can be employed to generate/determine a network logical topology for each service, including (1) virtual function (VF) points of presence (PoP) decision, i.e., physical locations (network addresses) of virtual functions, and (2) logical link decisions, i.e., logical links between service traffic sources, service VF PoPs, and service traffic destinations, and respective resource requirements. A one-to-many connection of PoPs may be due to computing resource constraints at Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) enabled nodes or bandwidth constraints over network links.
Different packet transport networks use different schemes to route traffic over the data plane. For example, some packet transport networks use source routing protocols that allow a sender of a packet to partially or completely specify the pathway over which the packet is transported through the network. Other packet transport networks use non-source routing protocols to switch packets on a link-by-link basis such that en-route nodes are responsible for determining at least a portion of the pathway over which the packet is transported through the network. Different routing schemes may offer different advantages and disadvantages for different network scenarios. For example, source routing protocols may offer low complexity, while non-source routing protocols may provide better overall network performance.
When networks use different schemes to route traffic over the data plane, a network logical topology is determined for each service. This includes decisions related to VF PoPs (based on respective computing resource requirements such as CPU, memory, storage, and I/O interfaces), and local link decisions (logical links between service traffic sources, service VF PoPs, service traffic destinations, and respective quality of service (QoS) requirements such as rate, latency, and jitter). The network logical topology determined for each service is called Service-level SDT.
When networks use different schemes or methods to route traffic over the data plane, a network logical topology is determined for each individual service session (a group of traffic flows). This includes determining logical paths in the network logical topology defined by the Service-level SDT. Decisions for each individual service session are related to the selection of a set of PoPs, from multiple PoPs through which to route the traffic flow. The network logical topology determined for each individual service session is called Session-level SDT.
A restriction on PoPs is that they are not to exceed their data processing capacity. The PoP processing load is subject to incoming traffic. Packets of the same session can be directed through the same unique PoP of a stateful function (a function that stores information related to the function during that particular session). However, in some instances, packets of the same session must be directed through the same unique PoP of a stateful function, which may further impose processing load on the PoP. There is no way to determine and monitor, for individual sessions, the VF PoPs that need to be traversed through with respect to the limited processing capability of PoPs, in order to avoid PoP overloading and for context maintenance of a function's statefulness.
Therefore there is a need for new systems and methods for SDT management that are not subject to one or more deficiencies in the prior art.
This background information is provided to reveal information believed by the applicant to be of possible relevance to the present invention. No admission is necessarily intended, nor should be construed, that any of the preceding information constitutes prior art against the present invention.